Job ASKING (edited for the whiners) me to get H1N1 vaccine
Comments
-
KDH12 wrote:scb wrote:KDH12 wrote:I am sorry but those numbers are not fact, they are estimates
notice in the article that every time he reports a number the sentence starts with "about" or "approximately"
I am not doubting that it has killed a good number of people
so when someone comes out and says... "I estimate that it has killed about..."
I have a hard time accepting it
Hahahahaha.... you're cracking me up!
Are you actually suggesting that your "estimates" are more (or even equally) valid than the CDC rounding the numbers off???
"About" and "approximately" are completely different than "I'm totally pulling numbers right out of my ass".
1- Who is pulling numbers out of their ass? Not even sure why you say such thing
2- The CDC does not round off they estimate, note below how many times they use the word estimate, it is even in the URL addres :roll:
Taken from http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates_2009_h1n1.htm
On Novebmer 12, 2009 CDC provided the first set of estimates on the numbers of 2009 H1N1 cases and related hospitalizations and deaths in the United States between April and October 17, 2009.
Estimates from April – October 17, 2009:
* CDC estimated that between 14 million and 34 million cases of 2009 H1N1 occurred between April and October 17, 2009. The mid-level in this range was about 22 million people infected with 2009 H1N1.
* CDC estimated that between about 63,000 and 153,000 2009 H1N1-related hospitalizations occurred between April and October 17, 2009. The mid-level in this range was about 98,000 H1N1-related hospitalizations.
* CDC estimated that between about 2,500 and 6,000 2009 H1N1-related deaths occurred between April and October 17, 2009. The mid-level in this range was about 3,900 2009 H1N1-related deaths.
Updated Estimates from April – November 14, 2009
Using the same methodology CDC has updated the estimates to include the time period from April through November 14, 2009.
* CDC estimates that between 34 million and 67 million cases of 2009 H1N1 occurred between April and November 14, 2009. The mid-level in this range is about 47 million people infected with 2009 H1N1.
* CDC estimates that between about 154,000 and 303,000 2009 H1N1-related hospitalizations occurred between April and November 14, 2009. The mid-level in this range is about 213,000 H1N1-related hospitalizations.
* CDC estimates that between about 7,070 and 13,930 2009 H1N1-related deaths occurred between April and November 14, 2009. The mid-level in this range is about 9,820 2009 H1N1-related deaths.
Note: More than 95% of the increases in the estimated numbers of 2009 H1N1 cases, hospitalizations and deaths between the November 12 and December 10 estimates occurred between October 17 and November 14, 2009. (Less than 5% of increases are the result of delayed reporting in cases, hospitalizations and deaths that occurred prior to October 17, 2009.)scb wrote:gimmesometruth27 wrote:hey SCB, we can't let facts get in the way of people's decision making now can we...
True! Facts are such pesky things!
I don't mean to suggest that the facts should get in the way of people's decision making - only that the facts should get in the way of people's bullshit that they are presenting as facts.
My facts are just as much fact as your facts..... even we even used some of the same numbers, shit the article you linked is hard to take as fact considering you pulled it from 1350 progessive talk radio
I guess my point above was that you can’t discount the data just because it’s an estimation or approximation, which is what I understood you to be saying.
You had previously said that only 1,200 had people had died from this flu, that only 2000-2500 were estimated to be expected to die, and that you didn’t think it would even reach 2000. I took this data from you at face value when I read it because I didn’t know any different data off-hand.
Then new data was released that is considerably different than what you had said, and I thought it was noteworthy. Estimates or not, it discounts the data you provided, saying that 7,000-14,000 people in the U.S. have died from H1N1 rather than 1,200 as you had said.
Also, you had also made a comparison between the H1N1 flu and the seasonal flu, saying the seasonal flu was much more dangerous. This article points out that the rate of hospitalization has been far greater with the H1N1 flu than with the seasonal flu. Again, that seems relevant.
And you know my facts are good regardless of the news source reporting them. I was at work and didn’t have time to pull the primary source, but you have kindly done that for me. You have now posted two completely different sets of “facts” about the prevalence of the H1N1 flu. Are you saying you still stand by your original statements?0 -
KDH12 wrote:TravisTheSky wrote:scb wrote:Swine flu
I was glad to see all of the flu threads fall off of the main page in the past few days. People have moved on to "Climate Gate" and other political issues.
But here you go, bumping the topic! You not only had the last word on this thread, you had the last two posts.
I was actually trying to let it die since I had started it...oh well
I could start a new thread for H1N1 facts, if you'd prefer.0 -
TravisTheSky wrote:scb wrote:Swine flu
I was glad to see all of the flu threads fall off of the main page in the past few days. People have moved on to "Climate Gate" and other political issues.
But here you go, bumping the topic! You not only had the last word on this thread, you had the last two posts.
I was just about to post in the Flight of the Conchords thread in the AET, but thought I should check with you first. It's almost off the main page and I wouldn't want to bump it without your permission.
Actually, to make things more simple, maybe you should send me a list of your interests so I'll know in advance what threads I'm allowed to post in and what I can say. So far this is all I know:
1. Pseudoscience
2. 10C ticket scalping0 -
KDH12 wrote:TravisTheSky wrote:scb wrote:Swine flu
I was glad to see all of the flu threads fall off of the main page in the past few days. People have moved on to "Climate Gate" and other political issues.
But here you go, bumping the topic! You not only had the last word on this thread, you had the last two posts.
I was actually trying to let it die since I had started it...oh well
Im glad people haven't let t his thread die. I appreciate the facts and stats from the cdc. It's like a fact sheet. AND .... I am glad i decided to get my son (age three) vaccinated as his sister's (half sister) boyfriend was hospitalized with swine flu on Wednesday. He (obviously) wasnt vaccinated... and she isnt... but I'm glad my 35 lb three year old is...as if he ended up hospitalized... or worse... I would be beside myself.
Here on Long Island h1n1 is alive and kicking and i think it's important for people to know the facts.
Thank you scb!0 -
**CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **0
-
0
-
KDH12 wrote:
From the article:"It is probably going to be the mildest pandemic on record — compared to the three that happened in the 20th century," says Dr. Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health and co-author of a new analysis in the journal Public Library of Science.
There are a number of ways to measure how severe — or mild — a flu pandemic is. One way is to look at the proportion of the population that gets sick. The season isn't over yet, but so far it's been less than 8 percent.
Lipsitch says assuming the virus doesn't change, it's reasonable to expect that between 10 percent and 20 percent of the population will become sick from it.
"[That's] toward the upper end of a typical flu season," he says, but still not as bad as was anticipated.
Another measure is the number of people who get sick enough to require hospital care. Lipsitch says if 15 percent of Americans get this flu, "then we would expect anywhere from about 70,000 up to over 600,000 hospitalizations."
He says the figure will probably end up somewhere in the middle, about where we'd be in a typical flu season.
The most important measure is how many people die. Last spring, experts thought it was entirely possible swine flu would kill 1 out of every 100 people who got the virus.
"We now know that's at least twentyfold too high and probably more than twentyfold too high," he says.
In fact, the death rate from swine flu so far has actually been less than the death rate during the average flu season. It's around 1 out of every 2,000 who've gotten sick, perhaps fewer.
The big difference this year is that most of those deaths have been among children, teenagers and adults under age 50. Flu typically kills mostly people older than 65.
But that's not because this flu is more severe among children and young adults, as many think. It's simply because many more young people are getting the flu than usual.
"And what you find is that the pandemic is making more kids sick. But it's killing a smaller percentage of the kids it makes sick than it is of the adults and seniors it makes sick," says Peter Sandman, an expert in risk communication.
He says the CDC has been reluctant to acknowledge that swine flu has been much milder than expected."
Very interesting. I've been telling scb that I don't trust the CDC.0 -
KDH12 wrote:More than 95% of the increases in the estimated numbers of 2009 H1N1 cases, hospitalizations and deaths between the November 12 and December 10 estimates occurred between October 17 and November 14, 2009. (Less than 5% of increases are the result of delayed reporting in cases, hospitalizations and deaths that occurred prior to October 17, 2009.)
If this is true, it's very interesting. Testing for H1N1 stopped in August. All suspected cases since then are flu-like illnesses which may or may not be some strain of flu virus. The mainstream media channel CBS reported that back when people were tested, only a small percentage of all tests were positive for H1N1.
I agree with Brandon's statement: I do not know anyone who's had swine flu. I don't even know of one person who thought he or she might have it. There are ten million people in L.A. County. I've seen ONE swine flu death reported on the local news all year. It's possible that most people exposed to the virus never got sick enough to think they were ill with flu, and now have natural immunity."May you live in interesting times."0 -
KDH12 wrote:scb wrote:Are you saying you still stand by your original statements?
Yes
My original statement was that I was not sure about getting the vaccine
Decided not to
And I stand by that
That's not what I meant, but it doesn't really matter.
For the record, I don't care whether you get vaccinated or not and am not (and have never been) trying to convince you to.0 -
Jeanwah wrote:He says the CDC has been reluctant to acknowledge that swine flu has been much milder than expected."
Very interesting. I've been telling scb that I don't trust the CDC.[/quote]
I don't have time to check out this article right now (though it looks interesting, so I appreciate it being posted). Regardless, I think we're talking about subjective vs. objective statements here. My point all along about the CDC is that they are the leading source of hard data. If, for instance, we want to know how many cases there have been of the flu, the CDC collects and reports that objective infomation. If we want to know the death rates in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations, the CDC collects and reports that objective information. If the CDC reports that the flu has reached pandemic levels, it's not a scare tactic designed to support some selfish agenda, it's just a report of the facts. The CDC is a good source for objective facts.0 -
TravisTheSky wrote:KDH12 wrote:More than 95% of the increases in the estimated numbers of 2009 H1N1 cases, hospitalizations and deaths between the November 12 and December 10 estimates occurred between October 17 and November 14, 2009. (Less than 5% of increases are the result of delayed reporting in cases, hospitalizations and deaths that occurred prior to October 17, 2009.)
If this is true, it's very inteesting. Testing for H1N1 stopped in August. All suspected cases since then are flu-like illnesses which may or may not be some strain of flu virus. The mainstream media channel CBS reported that back when people were tested, only a small percentage of all tests were positive for H1N1.
1. No, it’s not true that “Testing for H1N1 stopped in August.” They’ve just decided that not everyone needs to be tested. They still test people who are hospitalized, people who died, etc.
2. They decided that not everyone needs to be tested because, "As of September 19, 2009, more than 99% of circulating influenza viruses identified in the United States were 2009 H1N1 influenza." (http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/guidance/diagnostic_tests.htm)
3. No, it’s not true that “All suspected cases since then are flu-like illnesses which may or may not be some strain of flu virus.” “CDC has developed a method to provide an estimated range of the total number of 2009 H1N1 cases, hospitalizations and deaths in the United States since April, 2009, as well as a breakdown of these estimates by age groups. This method uses data on influenza-associated hospitalizations collected through CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP), which conducts surveillance for laboratory-confirmed influenza-related hospitalizations.”
4. Do you have a source for your information, please? I’m utterly baffled by how the information you presents is always used to imply such a wildly different scenario than every other source of information I read/hear. I wonder if that’s a result of the sources themselves, the interpretation of the data, the presentation of the information, or what.TravisTheSky wrote:I agree with Brandon's statement: I do not know anyone who's had swine flu. I don't even know of one person who thought he or she might have it. There are ten million people in L.A. County. I've seen ONE swine flu death reported on the local news all year. It's possible that most people exposed to the virus never got sick enough to think they were ill with flu, and now have natural immunity.
Who cares whether you or Brandon or anyone else knows anyone who’s had swine flu (that you are aware of)?? If that’s relevant, I’ll chime in: I know plenty of people who have had it. Several people in my office alone have had it.
As always, I find the data more relevant: In my state, there are less than 2 million people (1/5 the size of LA county) and there have been 43 laboratory-confirmed deaths from H1N1 so far. 33% of the people who died did NOT have high risk factors or underlying medical conditions. There have been 955 laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations due to H1N1.
And shouldn’t we want to reduce the number of H1N1 deaths, hospitalizations, and cases regardless of value judgment placed of prevalence anyway? Why the backlash against trying to decrease the morbidity and mortality of it so fewer people suffer? What would it take for some of you people to support (or at least quit opposing) public health efforts to decrease illness? Would 10 million people have to die? Or what about just one – your parent, sibling, spouse, or child? If your child died from it, would it matter to you that you’ve only heard one report on the news? If not, why don’t you care when it’s other people’s children?0 -
scb wrote:TravisTheSky wrote:KDH12 wrote:More than 95% of the increases in the estimated numbers of 2009 H1N1 cases, hospitalizations and deaths between the November 12 and December 10 estimates occurred between October 17 and November 14, 2009. (Less than 5% of increases are the result of delayed reporting in cases, hospitalizations and deaths that occurred prior to October 17, 2009.)
If this is true, it's very inteesting. Testing for H1N1 stopped in August. All suspected cases since then are flu-like illnesses which may or may not be some strain of flu virus. The mainstream media channel CBS reported that back when people were tested, only a small percentage of all tests were positive for H1N1.
1. No, it’s not true that “Testing for H1N1 stopped in August.” They’ve just decided that not everyone needs to be tested. They still test people who are hospitalized, people who died, etc.
2. They decided that not everyone needs to be tested because, "As of September 19, 2009, more than 99% of circulating influenza viruses identified in the United States were 2009 H1N1 influenza." (http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/guidance/diagnostic_tests.htm)
3. No, it’s not true that “All suspected cases since then are flu-like illnesses which may or may not be some strain of flu virus.” “CDC has developed a method to provide an estimated range of the total number of 2009 H1N1 cases, hospitalizations and deaths in the United States since April, 2009, as well as a breakdown of these estimates by age groups. This method uses data on influenza-associated hospitalizations collected through CDC’s Emerging Infections Program (EIP), which conducts surveillance for laboratory-confirmed influenza-related hospitalizations.”
4. Do you have a source for your information, please? I’m utterly baffled by how the information you presents is always used to imply such a wildly different scenario than every other source of information I read/hear. I wonder if that’s a result of the sources themselves, the interpretation of the data, the presentation of the information, or what.TravisTheSky wrote:I agree with Brandon's statement: I do not know anyone who's had swine flu. I don't even know of one person who thought he or she might have it. There are ten million people in L.A. County. I've seen ONE swine flu death reported on the local news all year. It's possible that most people exposed to the virus never got sick enough to think they were ill with flu, and now have natural immunity.
Who cares whether you or Brandon or anyone else knows anyone who’s had swine flu (that you are aware of)?? If that’s relevant, I’ll chime in: I know plenty of people who have had it. Several people in my office alone have had it.
As always, I find the data more relevant: In my state, there are less than 2 million people (1/5 the size of LA county) and there have been 43 laboratory-confirmed deaths from H1N1 so far. 33% of the people who died did NOT have high risk factors or underlying medical conditions. There have been 955 laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations due to H1N1.
And shouldn’t we want to reduce the number of H1N1 deaths, hospitalizations, and cases regardless of value judgment placed of prevalence anyway? Why the backlash against trying to decrease the morbidity and mortality of it so fewer people suffer? What would it take for some of you people to support (or at least quit opposing) public health efforts to decrease illness? Would 10 million people have to die? Or what about just one – your parent, sibling, spouse, or child? If your child died from it, would it matter to you that you’ve only heard one report on the news? If not, why don’t you care when it’s other people’s children?
How do you have time to post all of this but not read the article that I linked to :roll:
You might as well stop while you are ahead**CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **0 -
scb wrote:KDH12 wrote:scb wrote:Are you saying you still stand by your original statements?
Yes
My original statement was that I was not sure about getting the vaccine
Decided not to
And I stand by that
That's not what I meant, but it doesn't really matter.
For the record, I don't care whether you get vaccinated or not and am not (and have never been) trying to convince you to.
Now this is all becoming laughable
In the beginning you made SOME valid points but as you continue to post and post and post and post what YOU originally tried to say gets watered down
As I said, your facts and my facts are what we both believe them to be facts!
Some of us have a different opinion then you.. which is that some of the H1N1 "epidemic" has been blown out of proportion
Just admit one thing.... in all of this estimating that the CDC does.... IT IS possible that some of these cases that are documented as H1N1 are actually the seasonal flu**CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **0 -
scb wrote:As always, I find the data more relevant: In my state, there are less than 2 million people (1/5 the size of LA county) and there have been 43 laboratory-confirmed deaths from H1N1 so far. 33% of the people who died did NOT have high risk factors or underlying medical conditions. There have been 955 laboratory-confirmed hospitalizations due to H1N1.
So by your stats, which I am not going to bother to check
28 people (without preexisting conditions) out of less then 2 million ( whatever that is... lets say 175K) died from H1N1
I still do not see that as an epidemic or risky situation**CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **0 -
KDH12 wrote:
How do you have time to post all of this but not read the article that I linked to :roll:
Good point. (Clearly you don't understand the mind of a procrastinator. :oops: )
I didn't have time earlier, and then I got sidetracked by TravisTheSky's statements. I'll read your article later; it looks interesting.0 -
KDH12 wrote:Just admit one thing.... in all of this estimating that the CDC does.... IT IS possible that some of these cases that are documented as H1N1 are actually the seasonal flu
Of course. Anything's possible. There's bound to be at least 1 case of the seasonal flu being misdiagnosed as H1N1 and there's bound to be at least 1 case of H1N1 being misdiagnosed as seasonal flu - probably more in either direction.
That doesn't mean it's likely to happen at a level that would significantly change anything though. Besides, if you're talking about lab confirmation, they factor in the sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, etc. of the diagnostic tests.
I think some of the confusion lies in the interpretation of the information being presented. Professional organizations are very specific in what they say, which is why I maintain that what THEY say is most accurate - because they factor in what they don't know. But when the media or others report or intepret what they have said, it gets over-simplified, the factoring in of what they don't know is left out, value statements get attached, emotions get involved, and people something entirely different has been said.
I've never tried to say that data and the recommendations based on it are perfect - only that recommendations should be based on the BEST evidence we have, rather than less reliable or anecdotal information.0 -
KDH12 wrote:So by your stats, which I am not going to bother to check
28 people (without preexisting conditions) out of less then 2 million ( whatever that is... lets say 175K) died from H1N1
I still do not see that as an epidemic or risky situationKDH12 wrote:Some of us have a different opinion then you.. which is that some of the H1N1 "epidemic" has been blown out of proportion
I think you and I are talking about different things. You seem to think that I'm placing some value or judgment on the data or viewing it through a subjective lens. I'm not.
I don’t think everyone should be panicked about the swine flu or something. I’m not trying to suggest that 42 H1N1 deaths in a population of 2 million is a lot or a little. It is what it is – no more and no less. There is no proportion to be blown out of. This is not something subjective that you and I disagree on, where I think it’s a big deal and you don’t. My frustration and disagreement lies before that, in the belief that this is subjective at all.
“Epidemic” doesn’t mean something like “big,” where you and I can disagree on the value of the term. “Epidemic” means something more like “10”. 10 is 10 is 10 is 10. It’s objective. There’s not really any room for disagreement about it. Also, it carries no judgment. “Epidemic” and “pandemic” have specific definitions. From Wikipedia (because it’s accurate in this case & easily accessible):
In epidemiology, an epidemic (from Greek epi- upon + demos people) occurs when new cases of a certain disease, in a given human population, and during a given period, substantially exceed what is "expected," based on recent experience (the number of new cases in the population during a specified period of time is called the "incidence rate").
A pandemic (from Greek πᾶν pan "all" + δῆμος demos "people") is an epidemic of infectious disease that is spreading through human populations across a large region; for instance a continent, or even worldwide.
So by posting the stats of H1N1 deaths in my state, I was not suggesting that you should think that’s a risky situation or not. I was only suggesting that just because TravisTheSky has only heard one report of an H1N1 death in a population of 10 million, it doesn’t mean we should think people aren’t dying or that the death data is wrong.
If you’re okay with those 43 people in my state, or 10,000 people nation-wide, or someone in your family, dying from H1N1, fine with me. But for those who would like to decrease their risk and the risk of those around them (which, again, is not to judge that it’s “risky” to begin with, since that word has no objective meaning), they can do this by getting vaccinated…. which is all I’ve really been arguing.
I have tried to refrain, you’ll notice, from arguing that you have no right to risk the health of those around you.0 -
THIS IS THE CHILD IN MY LIFE, scb:scb wrote:just one – your parent, sibling, spouse, or child? If your child died from it, would it matter to you that you’ve only heard one report on the news? If not, why don’t you care when it’s other people’s children?
For nearly four weeks now, my niece been battling pneumonia. She lives on the other side of the country, so I didn't know the gory details at first. Here's what happened: She was ill with a cold but her parents and her paediatrician decided it would be a good idea to shoot her up with two vaccines! One was for seasonal influenza, the other for hepatitis A. She soon developed pneumonia. It has gotten worse over the weeks, she's on drugs, she was X-rayed. She is 24 months old!
My sister and her husband both have master's degrees. But they seem to have no sense when it comes to vaccines. They don't care what the ingredients are or what the risks are. They don't research how prevalent or rare each disease is. They just blindly accept. They read up on every other aspect of parenting, so I have no idea why they choose to remain ignorant on this issue. The hepatitis A vaccine is a brand new one just released last year. All toddlers before 2008 went 'unprotected.' Where was the generation of children we lost to hepatitis A? If my sister was terrified that her baby would die of the disease, I could understand her choice. She isn't worried. Yet still thought it would be healthy, wealthy, and wise to inject her baby with aluminum, formaldehyde, borax, cattle albumin, and Merck's patented line of live human cells from a foetus aborted in the 1970s. Yum!
The paediatrician's job is to sell vaccines. He should have at least insisted that the child be healthy before getting more shots. Why not wait two weeks for her cold to be ancient history? It's possible she would have developed pneumonia anyway, just from the cold. But challenging her immune system with vaccines while she was already sick is malpractice!
To me, it appears that the vaccines harmed my little niece. If vaccines were as safe as pure water, I would not be learning about them."May you live in interesting times."0 -
TravisTheSky wrote:
THIS IS THE CHILD IN MY LIFE, scb:scb wrote:just one – your parent, sibling, spouse, or child? If your child died from it, would it matter to you that you’ve only heard one report on the news? If not, why don’t you care when it’s other people’s children?
For nearly four weeks now, my niece been battling pneumonia. She lives on the other side of the country, so I didn't know the gory details at first. Here's what happened: She was ill with a cold but her parents and her paediatrician decided it would be a good idea to shoot her up with two vaccines! One was for seasonal influenza, the other for hepatitis A. She soon developed pneumonia. It has gotten worse over the weeks, she's on drugs, she was X-rayed. She is 24 months old!
My sister and her husband both have master's degrees. But they seem to have no sense when it comes to vaccines. They don't care what the ingredients are or what the risks are. They don't research how prevalent or rare each disease is. They just blindly accept. They read up on every other aspect of parenting, so I have no idea why they choose to remain ignorant on this issue. The hepatitis A vaccine is a brand new one just released last year. All toddlers before 2008 went 'unprotected.' Where was the generation of children we lost to hepatitis A? If my sister was terrified that her baby would die of the disease, I could understand her choice. She isn't worried. Yet still thought it would be healthy, wealthy, and wise to inject her baby with aluminum, formaldehyde, borax, cattle albumin, and Merck's patented line of live human cells from a foetus aborted in the 1970s. Yum!
The paediatrician's job is to sell vaccines. He should have at least insisted that the child be healthy before getting more shots. Why not wait two weeks for her cold to be ancient history? It's possible she would have developed pneumonia anyway, just from the cold. But challenging her immune system with vaccines while she was already sick is malpractice!
To me, it appears that the vaccines harmed my little niece. If vaccines were as safe as pure water, I would not be learning about them.
I'm sorrry your neice is sick and will be praying for her speedy recovery.
And now I'm going to refrain from saying anything about causation.
Have a nice day.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help